S NAGARATHINAM Vs. GOVT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Manager in the District Industries Centre, Small Industries Department, Cuddalore 607 001. He filed O.A.No.7878 of 2000 challenging the order of the State Government in G.O.(2D) No.36, Small Industries (E.II.2) Department dated 7.7.1999 and also prayed for regularising the period of suspension from 17.3.1979 to 13.1.1984 and pas appropriate orders.

(2.) IN the Original Application, Notice of Motion was ordered on 31.10.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, a reply affidavit dated 7.2.2001 was filed by the 1st respondent State together with supporting documents. As per the order of this Court in W.P.No.7859 of 2005 dated 9.3.2005, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.36647 of 2005.

(3.) IN any event, since that order has become final after remand, the State Government came to the conclusion that he had retired from service on 30.9.1991 on attaining the age of superannuation and since Rule 9 of the Pension Rules can be invoked, it decided to impose the penalty of cut in pension of Rs.100/- and for that purpose a fresh show cause notice dated 22.8.1995 was issued. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.9.1995. Thereafter, the TNPSC was consulted and the opinion of the TNPSC dated 5.2.1999 came to be received by the Government and considering all these factors, the Government on the basis of proved charges imposed the penalty. Though the petitioner contended that there was enormous delay, in the present case, the matter was dealt by the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries. It is the second round of litigation. Therefore, the delay is inevitable.